Tag Archives: 911

CBS Early Show Frets Over ‘Passenger Gridlock,’ Glosses Over TSA Civil Liberties Abuses

Posted on November 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on CBS Early Show Frets Over ‘Passenger Gridlock,’ Glosses Over TSA Civil Liberties Abuses

“Early Show” co-host Maggie Rodriguez today glossed over the TSA's use of intrusive pat-downs while drilling down on the potential for “gridlock” if distressed passengers cause “chaos” this weekend over the enhanced security measures. “There is, as I'm sure you know, this online movement that's gaining more and more momentum calling for people tomorrow to opt-out of those full-body scanners and get pat-downs instead to create chaos at the airport,” noted Rodriguez, interviewing aviation expert Peter Goelz. “The head of the TSA told me yesterday that will only serve to further delay and further irritate passengers. How bad do you think it could get?” Parroting the TSA chief's talking points, the CBS anchor failed to question Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, about the potential for civil liberties abuses. Instead, CBS displayed graphics hyperbolizing “TSA Turbulence” and fretting “Will Passenger Gridlock Hamper Holiday Travel?” Rodriguez even shifted the burden of responsibility from the government to the passengers: “Is there anything, Peter, that you suggest that people do as they travel in the next couple of days to make things go smoothly?” read more

See more here:
CBS Early Show Frets Over ‘Passenger Gridlock,’ Glosses Over TSA Civil Liberties Abuses

Comments Off on CBS Early Show Frets Over ‘Passenger Gridlock,’ Glosses Over TSA Civil Liberties Abuses

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

Posted on September 24, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

Catching up on an item from the Thursday, September 9, The View on ABC, Barbara Walters was at odds with her co-hosts over the issue of whether racism was the primary motivation of the Arizona illegal immigration law as well as opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Whoopi Goldberg raised the question of whether “there may be an undercurrent of racism in the USA that’s building up,” leading co-host Sherri Shepherd to assert that “you certainly hear racism a lot more, I think, than you ever heard it.” Walters soon jumped in to voice dissent: I think that we’re kind of mixing things up. When you say there’s more racism now, oh, there’s so much less racism than 20 years ago or 50 years ago. … There is racism in this country. That’s not new. There is racism against the President. That’s not new. But I disagree with putting the mosque and the Arizona laws. I think the Arizona laws have to do with losing jobs and people coming across the border to get those jobs. After Goldberg responded, “Then why don’t they say that?” Walters continued: Please let me just finish. It is what they say. It is what they say. And the drug wars right across the border. If you had Canadians – and this doesn’t happen – and they were all coming and taking jobs and there were drug wars- She soon added, “I don’t think it’s because they are Mexican or because they’re brown. … And I don’t think the mosque is because Muslims have a darker skin. That’s fear of terrorism. I don’t think we can mix everything up and say it’s all racism.” Walters and Goldberg soon resumed their back-and-forth: WALTERS: But we’ve also had things about learning another language in school and whether languages should be taught in Spanish. What I’m saying is, of course there is racism, but I don’t think you can take everything that’s happening in this country and say, well- GOLDBERG: If you are targeting, if you are talking about Mexicans coming and taking your jobs, say that. Don’t say “illegal immigrants” when that’s not what you mean because people come from Canada and people come from England and people come from Africa, all over, and their- WALTERS: But they’re not coming en masse. GOLDBERG: -visas go away, but you know what. If you are going after illegal immigrants, then you have to go after all illegal immigrants, not just the brown ones. A bit later, they added: WALTERS: All I’m saying is that, we’re agreeing that there is racism. But I’m just saying that there are other things. The mosque has to do with terrorism. It’s not just the, I know, we disagree. It’s not just the color. I don’t think that you can just do a blanket. GOLDBERG: I think it feels that way. It feels that way, and that’s the question I’m posing. It feels that way. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, September 9, The View on ABC: WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do you guys think there may be an undercurrent of racism in the USA that’s building up? Because, now, particularly against brown people? Because we have the Arizona immigration law, the Ground Zero mosque controversy, burn-the-Koran day and the hammering that folks seem to be taking. I can’t think of the woman’s name and it’s probably better, but she was screaming the “N” word all over her Web site. SEVERAL PANEL MEMBERS SAY: Dr. Laura Schlessinger. GOLDBERG: Yeah, so does it feel to you that there’s a little tension or am I just being kooky? SHERRI SHEPHERD: You know, I don’t know if it’s that because we now have an African-American President, all of this stuff that has always been simmering underneath the surface, has bubbled up. Because you certainly hear racism a lot more, I think, than you ever heard it. And so, it just seems like it’s now bubbling up, and, I don’t know, it seems like there’s just something going on- JOY BEHAR: Well, it’s disguised, isn’t it? I mean, as far as President Obama is concerned, some people still say he’s a Muslim, that they don’t believe he’s really American. SHEPHERD: They want to see his birth certificate. BEHAR: Those are kind of like code words for, you know, we don’t trust the other. He’s the other. ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Well, there are fringe groups like that regardless of who’s President. But especially now, it does seem ironic because we have our first black President, yet all this stuff is coming up. And so you have to wonder why, especially since Obama did receive a large portion of what they call the white vote, you know, so it seems disheartening that this is happening. And it does seem like, you know, the word “tolerance” gets spread around, you know, you can be tolerant, but- BEHAR: He got a large portion of the white vote. But this is a small group of people that are pushing this type of agenda that is not American. HASSELBECK: It’s no secret that (INAUDIBLE) have prejudice and it’s disgusting and it’s ugly and it’s there. And it’s been and for some reason now it’s maybe just being uncovered again. BARBARA WALTERS: (INAUDIBLE) I just say something? Okay, because I think that we’re kind of mixing things up. When you say there’s more racism now, oh, there’s so much less racism than 20 years ago or 50 years ago. SHEPHERD: I think maybe overt. Yeah, I think it was a lot of overt, I don’t know, you and I disagree on that. WALTERS: Could I say something? There is racism in this country. That’s not new. There is racism against the President. That’s not new. But I disagree with putting the mosque and the Arizona laws. I think the Arizona laws have to do with losing jobs and people coming across the border to get those jobs. GOLDBERG: Then why don’t they say that? SHEPHERD: Barbara, when you- WALTERS: Please let me just finish. It is what they say. It is what they say. And the drug wars right across the border. If you had Canadians – and this doesn’t happen – and they were all coming and taking jobs and there were drug wars- GOLDBERG: What jobs are they taking? WALTERS: -you would find very much- They are taking, if you look, the reason (INAUDIBLE) HASSELBECK: The jobs that, frankly, no one wants. WALTERS: That’s right, but I don’t think it’s because they are Mexican or because they’re brown. I know you differ- (GOLDBERG SAYS SOMETHING INAUDIBLE) WALTERS: But let me just finish. GOLDBERG: Sorry, Barbara. Sorry. WALTERS: And I don’t think the mosque is because Muslims have a darker skin. That’s fear of terrorism. I don’t think we can mix everything up and say it’s all racism. SHEPHERD: When Jan Brewer signed into law, you know, a law that prohibits the children in school from having their ethnic studies, African-American studies, Mexican-American studies, and you’re prohibiting people from learning about their country and it’s targeting minorities, it certainly seems like it’s not because somebody is taking their jobs. WALTERS: But we’ve also had things about learning another language in school and whether languages should be taught in Spanish. What I’m saying is, of course there is racism, but I don’t think you can take everything that’s happening in this country and say, well- GOLDBERG: If you are targeting, if you are talking about Mexicans coming and taking your jobs, say that. Don’t say “illegal immigrants” when that’s not what you mean because people come from Canada and people come from England and people come from Africa, all over, and their- WALTERS: But they’re not coming en masse. GOLDBERG: -visas go away, but you know what. If you are going after illegal immigrants, then you have to go after all illegal immigrants, not just the brown ones. (AUDIENCE APPLAUSE) HASSELBECK: I agree with that. I absolutely think that it’s powerful, and I think, you know, we can’t spend millions and millions of dollars protecting borders in other nations if we cannot even control our own, and I do think that- GOLDBERG: I totally get you. I get you what you’re saying. WALTERS: All I’m saying is that, we’re agreeing that there is racism. But I’m just saying that there are other things. The mosque has to do with terrorism. It’s not just the, I know, we disagree. It’s not just the color. I don’t think that you can just do a blanket. GOLDBERG: I think it feels that way. It feels that way, and that’s the question I’m posing. It feels that way. HASSELBECK: I’d be asking that question if I were brown or black. I mean, I can totally understand how there is that sentiment. I can totally understand how there is that worry, and I think it’s legitimate. BEHAR: Do you lump the mosque in with Mexico? GOLDBERG: I do. Because, you know, I feel very strongly that you cannot take an entire religion and make it responsible for the kooky people because you can’t, because you have, you know, we don’t want to do that with the Catholic religion. We don’t want to take that religion and say, well, everybody is this, or the Christians or anybody else. BEHAR: If the attack on 9/11 was done by Christians, would they not allow a church? GOLDBERG: Well, that is a good question. That’s a very good question. BEHAR: (INAUDIBLE) but it’s a valid question to ask because, if the answer is yes, then you have a point. HASSELBECK: The Catholic Church right now could never afford that property, so that would answer that question.

Link:
ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

Comments Off on ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Survey Shows Arabs More Opposed to GZ Mosque Than American Media

Posted on September 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Here’s a fact you’re not likely to see on tonight’s evening news broadcasts: According to a recent poll, Arabs living abroad are more likely to be opposed to the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the American media are. According to a recent survey by the Arabic online news service Elaph (Arabic version here ), 58 percent of Arabs think the construction should be moved elsewhere. And according to a Media Research Center study released last week, 55 percent of network news coverage of the debate has come down on the pro-Mosque side. The MRC study also found that on the question of whether opposition to the mosque demonstrated a widely held “Islamophobia” among Americans, 93 percent of network news soundbites answered ion the affirmative. In contrast, when asked whether the United States is a “tolerant” or “bigoted” society, 63 percent of Elaph respondents chose the former. So the Arab world has a more favorable view of Americans than our own media elite, and sides with the American people over the network news broadcasters on the hot-button issue of the day. Faoud Ajami highlighted the Elaph poll in his Wall Street Journal column on Monday: From his recent travels to the Persian Gulf-sponsored and paid for by the State Department-Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf returned with a none-too-subtle threat. His project, the Ground Zero Mosque, would have to go on. Its cancellation would risk putting “our soldiers, our troops, our embassies and citizens under attack in the Muslim world.” Leave aside the attempt to make this project a matter of national security. The self-appointed bridge between America and the Arab-Islamic world is a false witness to the sentiments in Islamic lands. Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens and Editorial Board member Matthew Kaminski on the plan for a ‘Mosque at Ground Zero,’ and Senior Editorial Writer Joseph Rago reports on the Missouri results. The truth is that the trajectory of Islam in America (and Europe for that matter) is at variance with the play of things in Islam’s main habitat. A survey by Elaph, the most respected electronic daily in the Arab world, gave a decided edge to those who objected to the building of this mosque-58% saw it as a project of folly. Elaph was at it again in the aftermath of Pastor Terry Jones’s threat to burn copies of the Quran: It queried its readers as to whether America was a “tolerant” or a “bigoted” society. The split was 63% to 37% in favor of those who accepted the good faith and pluralism of this country. So a larger proportion of Arabs believe in that notion than American journalists. That is a sad indictment of the press in this country.

Read the original post:
Survey Shows Arabs More Opposed to GZ Mosque Than American Media

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

Posted on September 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote a short piece on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 that should be must-reading for all Americans on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I’m sure liberal Times devotees will be just as shocked by ” A Lesson From 9/11 ” as conservatives that take the three minutes necessary to get through it. After sharing his experience as a New Yorker who was in Manhattan that awful day, Blow marvelously tied it all together with what Americans have fought and died for since our forefathers were colonists: My attitude that day was the same as most Americans: the terrorists must not be allowed to win. America would not be cowed. We would rise, our greatness would shine, and our ideas of freedom would remain a beacon to the world. That is why the debate these past few weeks over Islam in America – from the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan to talk of the burning of Korans – has been so hard to watch. Too much of the debate seems to be centered around the sensitivities of terrorists a world away who have hijacked the passions of a faith, who would see us destroyed and who want to attract more damaged souls to their cause. I understand, in theory, the idea of not stirring the hornet’s nest while our troops are still in harm’s way. But I chafe at the idea that great American debates, in all their ugliness and splendor, should be tempered for terrorists and their attempts to recruit. Blow then shared results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finding the number of people feeling America is currently safer from terrorism than before 9/11 is at a new low. He continued: But we simply cannot allow this new wave of fear to make us into something that we’re not. We are a country of freedoms, a country where religious freedom and freedom of speech hold equal standing, a country in which the construction of a building and the destruction of a book are rights extended to all, even if opposed by most. Free expressions are not always pleasant, but they must ever be protected, with no regard to the proclivities of the enemy. This is America, and the moment we forget that, they start to win. Indeed. Our media today, and much of the cowering Left, operate under the premise that we have to alter our behavior to win the approval of our enemies or else expect violent repercussions. Although Blow didn’t use the word, it’s akin to wartime appeasement. As most Europeans found out during World War II, it doesn’t work. The more modern term that pertains to appeasing radical Islam is dhimmitude, a process by which Western nations enact changes to their culture and their very way of life so as not to create unrest in their growing Muslim populations. This is already happening in Holland, France, Germany, and Great Britain to name a few. With this in mind, what we as a nation have to decide is whether we’re going to follow Europe’s lead and start remaking ourselves out of fear that our enemies will somehow retaliate or enjoy new recruits if we don’t. As Blow surprisingly noted, if we do this, we lose. After England’s Neville Chamberlain made a fool out of himself at Munich, stronger leaders named Churchill and Roosevelt opted to not make the same mistake he did. 72 years later, the United States is once again faced with the option of either following today’s Neville Chamberlains or taking a stronger, less-cowardly, more American approach with our enemies. Of course, some of the recent furor concerning a little-known Pastor in Gainesville, Florida, was stoked by comments made by David Petraeus. Although most Americans have great respect for the General, it is possible he over-reacted to Terry Jones’s Koran burning threat, and may have unnecessarily inflamed the situation with his warning. That, too, is up for debate, or at least should be unless we fear that also will stoke our enemies’ ire. But if a diehard liberal like Blow can see that we shouldn’t be afraid of debates on sensitive subjects, maybe the rest of the cowering media can pull out their pacifiers, take off their diapers, and stop acting like freedom of speech is only a good thing if nobody is offended by it. As Europe learned in 1939, if you give your enemies an inch, they’ll take a mile. If we give up this right to make radical Islamists happy, what’ll be next?

View post:
NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

You Can Shun Terry Jones, But the Koran-Burning Bug Is Out [Media]

Posted on September 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

After Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones received enough mainstream media attention to merit a cease-and-desist phone call from the Secretary of Defense yesterday, some major news outlets are trying to absolve themselves of guilt. But how will they treat Jones’ copycats? More

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor

Posted on September 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Snatching the proverbial low-hanging fruit off the branch, Arianna Huffington compared the vast majority of Americans who oppose the construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero to the thirty members of a Florida church who plan to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. Appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, the liberal publisher criticized the president for not echoing her logical fallacy. “I think the point [President Barack Obama] could have made is to connect [Koran burning] with the opposition of the mosque,” asserted Huffington, publisher of The Huffington Post. “You can’t really completely separate these things.” Huffington then attempted to pass off circular logic as a “teachable moment:” People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, founder of The Daily Caller, countered Huffington’s fatuous claims: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. After agreeing with Huffington’s illogical parallel, GMA anchor George Stephanopoulos directed a loaded question at Carlson. “Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms?” demanded the former Clinton adviser. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: ABC GMA September 9, 2010 8:17 A.M. E.S.T. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We were talking about the Florida pastor just before we came on the air. Starting with you, Tucker. This had to be kind of a tough call in the White House. You’ve got this Florida pastor, thirty followers, yet pretty clearly from the beginning the week until the president’s interview with me yesterday they were saying “we’ve got to take this on.” TUCKER CARLSON, founder of The Daily Caller: I don’t think he needed to take it on. I think it was foolish to respond to your question – a good question though it was. He should have waved his hand dismissively; this guy represents no one, he’s a lone wacko. I think the president truly believes, and many in his party do, that the center of the country is filled with people just like this, who are intolerant and hateful, and there’s no evidence of that at all. There haven’t been a lot of anti-Islamic incidents. STEPHANOPOULOS: Setting aside what happens here in the United States, which is a hard thing to set aside, I think the danger is that even if he is a wacko, around the world he is seen as representing America? CARLSON: So they’re going to hate us more now? I mean, come on. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, founder of The Huffington Post: It’s very hard for him not to respond when General Petraeus himself has said that this is going to be putting our troops at risk. I think the point he could have made is to connect it with the opposition of the mosque. STEPHANOPOULOS: That would be doubling down though, wouldn’t it? HUFFINGTON: You can’t really completely separate these things. STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you’re right. HUFFINGTON: And I think that’s really the teachable moment. People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. CARLSON: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. HUFFINGTON: I didn’t say it’s the same, but there is a continuity. And you can’t just say “this is okay, and anything beyond that is not.” STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms? CARLSON: Well I guess there are two points. One, there is no mosque or inter-faith mosque, there’s actually nothing, it’s merely an idea and it’s nowhere close to coming to fruition. So the point of this is to provoke. The point of this is to put a stick in the eye of people who are offended by this, which is like seventy percent of Americans. If you truly wanted to honor the memory of those killed on 9/11 why not ask the relatives of those who were killed on 9/11. Shouldn’t they have a say in this? They’re overwhelmingly against this. STEPHANOPOULOS: A say, but not a veto.      HUFFINGTON: Yes, you can’t have a veto and still basically stand up for the fundamental principles of the country and one of them is the freedom to worship wherever you are, on private ground, and whatever religion you believe in. I mean, that’s a fundamental freedom, that was part of the founding of this country. It wasn’t like an ancillary thought that the Founders had. CARLSON: But nobody is denying that. The argument is is it a good idea? Or is it somehow a desecration? And you can believe, as I do, that it is a provocation and a desecration and it’s wrong and maybe even immoral, but that you shouldn’t prevent it legally. There is an argument to be made. And I have to say, conflating people who think it’s wrong to build the mosque at Ground Zero with people who want to burn a Koran.

Link:
Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does This Dirt Field Look Muslim to You? [Fearmongering]

Posted on September 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pa., supposedly honors the brave folks who sacrificed themselves during an in-flight power struggle on 9/11. So why does its design include a huge Muslim crescent pointing at Mecca? Here we go again. More

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target

Posted on September 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Reporting ABC News President David Westin’s plan to step down at the end of the year, the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz noted “some early missteps” during his 13-year tenure, such as “a comment after the Sept. 11 attacks, for which Westin apologized, that journalists should offer no opinion about whether the Pentagon had been a legitimate military target.” That apology was promoted by an MRC CyberAlert item in October of 2001 which put into play an answer Westin delivered during a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism seminar. Barely six weeks after the 9/11 attack, Westin was remarkably reticent about expressing an opinion, contending that’s improper for a journalist to do so – how quaint: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now….Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people….As a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be. After the Monday CyberAlert item was widely picked up (FNC’s Brit Hume, plastered across the DrudgeReport, New York Post, lengthy discussion by Rush Limbaugh) on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 ABC News called to get an e-mail address to send a statement from Westin, which read: Like all Americans, I was horrified at the loss of life at the Pentagon, as well as in New York and Pennsylvania on September 11. When asked at an interview session at the Columbia Journalism School whether I believed that the Pentagon was a legitimate target for terrorists I responded that, as a journalist, I did not have an opinion. I was wrong. I gave an answer to journalism students to illustrate the broad, academic principle that all journalists should draw a firm line between what they know and what their personal opinion might be. Upon reflection, I realized that my answer did not address the specifics of September 11. Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification. I apologize for any harm that my misstatement may have caused. Monday, October 29 CyberAlert : “Pentagon a Legitimate Target?” Wednesday, October 31 CyberAlert Extra : “Reacting to CyberAlert Item, ABC News President David Westin Has Apologized and Said ‘I Was Wrong’ for Having ‘No Opinion’ on Whether the Pentagon Was a ‘Legitimate’ Military Target” A few weeks later, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes recounted in the magazine : …On October 23, Westin spoke to a class at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Asked if the Pentagon were a legitimate target for attack by America’s enemies, he said, “I actually don’t have an opinion on that…as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something I should not be taking a position on.” The comment drew no criticism from the students, which may tell you something about them. But four days later, the Westin speech was shown on C-SPAN, where Brent Baker of the Media Research Center caught it at 2 A.M. Baker put excerpts in the daily “CyberAlert” he writes for MRC’s website. Rummaging through the Internet, Brit Hume spotted the item and mentioned it on “Special Report” that evening on Fox. Two days later, the New York Post picked it up and the next day so did the Drudge Report. That alerted Rush Limbaugh, who devoted an hour or more to it on his radio show. With Limbaugh’s show still in progress, Baker got a call from ABC. A reply would be e-mailed to him soon for posting on the MRC website. It was a total capitulation. “I was wrong,” Westin wrote. “Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification.”… Westin’s original October 23 answer, in full: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. The way I conceive my job running a news organization, and the way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people. I can say the Pentagon got hit, I can say this is what their position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that’s perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it’s for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it’s for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be.

Go here to read the rest:
Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Posted on August 29, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NewsBusters 5th Anniversary: A Look Back at Some of Our Top Posts of Outrageous Media Outbursts

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

As part of the 5th anniversary celebration of NewsBusters we have started a weekly Five for Five feature to list the blog’s top twenty five posts. Last time, we looked at the top five posts on journalistic Obamagasms. On Friday we concluded with the top five posts of outrageous media outbursts. We have picked out a couple posts from each of the five categories and asked the authors to reflect back on writing them up. In this series of short videos, they share their thoughts on how they caught the particular media moment and describe the impact their post had. We finish our video look back by reflecting on two of top posts of outrageous media outbursts: “Rosie O’Donnell Spouts 9/11 Conspiracies: ‘First Time in History Fire Has Ever Melted Steel'” by Justin McCarthy (reflection by Rich Noyes) and “Maher Buys Into Claim Sarah Palin’s Baby Son Really Her Grandson” by Brent Baker. Check out the last video of NewsBusters’ Tim Graham and Kyle Drennen remembering some of the top posts on journalistic Obamagasms.

Here is the original post:
NewsBusters 5th Anniversary: A Look Back at Some of Our Top Posts of Outrageous Media Outbursts

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,